github_download_artifacts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, leaving the description to carry the full transparency burden. It usefully discloses return values (artifact names, sizes, pre-signed download URLs) and hints at the read-only nature of the operation, but it does not explain URL expiration, permission requirements, or potential rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes return value information. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list/get tool with four well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return values. It does not mention pagination or limits, but these are unlikely to be critical given the tool's narrow scope and sibling context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters clearly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific context beyond what the schema provides, effectively meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List and get download URLs for artifacts produced by a workflow run.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the focus on artifacts distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle repositories, workflows, runs, and deployments.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: use this tool when you need to list artifacts from a workflow run or obtain their download URLs. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but among the siblings no other tool handles artifacts, so the intended usage is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.